Why Bush is Wrong About an Iraq Timetable

It's undecided.

The mission, win the war with Shock and Awe, was accomplished a year and a half ago. The plan for winning the peace has never been much thought out - evidently.

But never mind, the west has got those oil contracts one way or the other.

 

I actually thought it was both but I appreciate the correction anyway.

I met an Iranian woman who was married to a Swiss man last year. Over dinner he translated a conversation for us that I found interesting (she spoke German but not English).

She said that the Iranian people hate the mullahs that are in charge but fear them too much to rebel. She indicated that they would like a more open and democratic society like what we are trying to do in Iraq. They hated Saddam and were glad to see him go. They want the US to do something to oust the mullahs and solve regional problems... but at the same time, they resent everything we have done and continue to do.

It was insightful... but also perplexing. Everyone expects the US to take the lead then gets hacked off when we do or we do.

 

I disagree. Progress in Iraq has not always gone as hoped or expected but it has been made. We are building/re-building their infrastructure. We are training their police and security forces. They are progressing toward a legitimate government and constitution.

The president's opponents have certainly made political hay with a compliant, anti-war press... but the only "concrete" suggestions that have been forwarded have been very similar to exactly what our planners worked out many months ago and have been attempting to execute on the ground.

There are many unpredictable things in an endeavor that large. Do you think you could do it?

The task in the Balkans was no where near the scope of Iraq... and we still have people there. Problems persist. Re-building continues. Did Clinton plan that poorly?

 

Do you speak/understand German at all? I only know English (and a smidgen of French).

Yeah, my husband tells me his father always hated the mullahs. A lot of Moslems do hate them. Unfortunately, the mullahs are gaining more power in Bangladesh.

They would. They may achieve democracy on their own, too.

Well, we kinda destabilized the region and gave the mullahs more influence as being against the "decadent West".

The lead, sure, but in what direction? Invading a sovereign nation who posed no real threat to us can hardly be seen as reassuring to them - especially as we continue to rattle our swords at them.

Maybe and maybe they are progressing towards a Kurdistan (which is seen as a threat to Turkey and Iran) and/or an all out civil war.

The press has been gung-ho in favor of the war to the point where they glossed over the analysis leading up to it (for which they recently apologized). War coverage means good ratings.

Um, "many months ago"? The war has been going on for years now. A plan for stabilizing the country and what would happen afterwards should have been in place before the invasion.

Given the same resources? Probably not, but I wouldn't have undertaken the invasion in the first place.

No, it was much better planned. Clinton went in to an area in the midst of civil war and genocide (on-going, not fifteen years past) as part of an international peace-keeping effort and brought peace and stability to the area - kind of the opposite of what Bush did.

What is the difference in scope? I'm not at all clear about that.

 

Do you speak/understand German at all? I only know English (and a smidgen of French). </font>[/QUOTE] No. He translated it all. He knows French, Italian, German, English, and apparently some Arabic.

Well, we kinda destabilized the region and gave the mullahs more influence as being against the "decadent West".</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, she kind of indicated something different.

They don't like us primarily because of Israel... they don't like the mullahs because they make their lives miserable.

I disagree that the region is less stable or less secure than before the Iraq war. Saddam himself was a de-stabilizing force. Had we not invaded, Saddam was already in the process of kicking the inspectors out. He would have proceeded with WMD production over the summer and been a much greater danger and destabilizer.

The lead, sure, but in what direction?</font>[/QUOTE] I would argue that those paying the bills and doing the bleeding have the first and last say on direction.

That is a very questionable assertion. Saddam has a history of WMD development and use. He was interested in missile technology. He did sponsor terrorist training camps inside of Iraq. He did state as a goal the facilitation of acts of terrorism against the US and its allies... and that according to the Russians who both supplied him with arms and protested the war.

That seemed to please her. They like seeing the mullahs nervous and would probably welcome American removal of them... if we didn't expect anything in return.

Right now, we may be better off with the mullahs we know and can contain than the alternative.

Yes. The scope and persistence of the insurgency was not correctly calculated but there were no delusions about removing Saddam and exiting within the same year. Reconstruction is necessary unless you want someone even worse to take over. This was the fundamental lesson learned by leaving Germany in ruins and even requiring them to pay reparations after WWI.

After WWII, we spent many years rebuilding Germany on our dime.

I would also argue that the insurgency would start to wane if they weren't given such favorable press in the region as well as the west... and especially the US. Their successes no matter how meaningless are accentuated. Sowell hits this nicely: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_13_05_TS.html

Anyone can read the history of Vietnam and realize a strategy of defeating the US by manipulating the press. There are probably significant numbers involved in the insurgency who have studied in the US.

Maybe and maybe they are progressing towards a Kurdistan (which is seen as a threat to Turkey and Iran) and/or an all out civil war.</font>[/QUOTE] Those are risks... that increase exponentially when a) leaders in our country call for a pullout or timeline, b) only bad news is reported out of Iraq, and c) anti-war elements give encouragement to the insurgents that their strategy is working... in spite of their very heavy losses.

The press has been gung-ho in favor of the war to the point where they glossed over the analysis leading up to it (for which they recently apologized).</font>[/QUOTE] I was speaking of the time since the invasion.

They have consistently reported our losses and setbacks while ignoring our wins and progress. Any progress is always tempered with the negative side. The negatives are reported as "just news".

I guess they now have calculated that anti-Bush, anti-Iraq involvement news means good ratings?

Um, "many months ago"? The war has been going on for years now. A plan for stabilizing the country and what would happen afterwards should have been in place before the invasion.</font>[/QUOTE] There was one. Officials have acknowledged miscalculating the insurgency as well as Iraqi reception. Our guys apparently thought the Iraqis would have forgotten that we left them hanging before- resulting in mass murder by Saddam.

Given the same resources? Probably not, but I wouldn't have undertaken the invasion in the first place.</font>[/QUOTE] Good thing you weren't in charge.

No, it was much better planned. Clinton went in to an area in the midst of civil war and genocide (on-going, not fifteen years past) as part of an international peace-keeping effort and brought peace and stability to the area - kind of the opposite of what Bush did. </font>[/QUOTE] According to recent reports, the antagonism has not waned and only continued UN presence for the forseeable future will prevent a new outbreak of violence.

It was a much smaller problem with little possibility of de-stablizing surrounding nations.

A problem by the way that presented absolutely positively NO threat to the US or its vital interests. There was no reason for us to be there at all.

But that is the difference between a president that allows the Europeans to dictate foreign policy to him and one that puts US interests first.

 

Do you speak/understand German at all? I only know English (and a smidgen of French). </font>[/QUOTE] No. He translated it all. He knows French, Italian, German, English, and apparently some Arabic.

Well, we kinda destabilized the region and gave the mullahs more influence as being against the "decadent West".</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, she kind of indicated something different.

They don't like us primarily because of Israel... they don't like the mullahs because they make their lives miserable.

I disagree that the region is less stable or less secure than before the Iraq war. Saddam himself was a de-stabilizing force. Had we not invaded, Saddam was already in the process of kicking the inspectors out. He would have proceeded with WMD production over the summer and been a much greater danger and destabilizer.

The lead, sure, but in what direction?</font>[/QUOTE] I would argue that those paying the bills and doing the bleeding have the first and last say on direction.

That is a very questionable assertion. Saddam has a history of WMD development and use. He was interested in missile technology. He did sponsor terrorist training camps inside of Iraq. He did state as a goal the facilitation of acts of terrorism against the US and its allies... and that according to the Russians who both supplied him with arms and protested the war.

That seemed to please her. They like seeing the mullahs nervous and would probably welcome American removal of them... if we didn't expect anything in return.

Right now, we may be better off with the mullahs we know and can contain than the alternative.

 

Maybe and maybe they are progressing towards a Kurdistan (which is seen as a threat to Turkey and Iran) and/or an all out civil war.[/quote][/qb] Those are risks... that increase exponentially when a) leaders in our country call for a pullout or timeline, b) only bad news is reported out of Iraq, and c) anti-war elements give encouragement to the insurgents that their strategy is working... in spite of their very heavy losses.

The press has been gung-ho in favor of the war to the point where they glossed over the analysis leading up to it (for which they recently apologized).</font>[/QUOTE] I was speaking of the time since the invasion.

They have consistently reported our losses and setbacks while ignoring our wins and progress. Any progress is always tempered with the negative side. The negatives are reported as "just news".

I guess they now have calculated that anti-Bush, anti-Iraq involvement news means good ratings?

Um, "many months ago"? The war has been going on for years now. A plan for stabilizing the country and what would happen afterwards should have been in place before the invasion.</font>[/QUOTE] There was one. Officials have acknowledged miscalculating the insurgency as well as Iraqi reception. Our guys apparently thought the Iraqis would have forgotten that we left them hanging before- resulting in mass murder by Saddam.

Given the same resources? Probably not, but I wouldn't have undertaken the invasion in the first place.</font>[/QUOTE] Good thing you weren't in charge.

No, it was much better planned. Clinton went in to an area in the midst of civil war and genocide (on-going, not fifteen years past) as part of an international peace-keeping effort and brought peace and stability to the area - kind of the opposite of what Bush did. </font>[/QUOTE] According to recent reports, the antagonism has not waned and only continued UN presence for the forseeable future will prevent a new outbreak of violence.

It was a much smaller problem with little possibility of de-stablizing surrounding nations.

A problem by the way that presented absolutely positively NO threat to the US or its vital interests. There was no reason for us to be there at all.

But that is the difference between a president that allows the Europeans to dictate foreign policy to him and one that puts US interests first.